Im pretty sure that's also illegal.. depending where you're from though. Of course if it's some over the counter or free lance service, it doesn't matter and is exactly wrong if they're willing to pay for it.

Wealthy people have more money, they still end up paying a smaller % of their capital then Joe the plumber for the same service

So yes, take what you can get from the upper class.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 01:37 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Palmatum

Sounds wrong to me.

I get annoyed paying 50% tax when I receive the same government benefits as someone that pays 20% or even none at all.

Does the 50% taxes results in you earning less then the guy that pays 20%? Probably not, probably not even close.

Originally Posted by Aphrel

Keywords: India, Congo, Peru, South africa, childmarrages.
Why have i never heard these words out of the mouth from a feminist?
All they go on about is manspreading and how they wanna remove free speech and the evils of computergaming.

Originally Posted by Levelfive

Probably because your only exposure to feminism is what you read on gaming sites.

Wealthy people have more money, they still end up paying a smaller % of their capital then Joe the plumber for the same service

So yes, take what you can get from the upper class.

---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 01:37 PM ----------

Does the 50% taxes results in you earning less then the guy that pays 20%? Probably not, probably not even close.

No but that shouldn't matter. Most people my age that earn enough to be on the 20% tax bracket are there because they settled for mediocrity/what they have. That might suit some people fine, but people that apply themselves and contribute more to society monetarily shouldn't be punished financially for it.

Erm NO. That is a horrible economic oversimplification of flow of currency and social reprecussion of whealth. I'll give an exemple.

Someone who earns 1000 "credits" a month and pays 200 into taxes that are used for maintenance of roads and infrastructure pays 1/5 of his net worth into said services has 50000 credits of property needing police and military protection etc.

Individual 2 earns 250000 "credits" a month but only pays 25000 into taxes that used for maintencnace of road and infrastructure pays 1/10 of his net worth into said but has 4.000.000 credits of property needing police and military protection etc.

Thus even when we talk about something simple like this it is obvious that he is not paying for the exact same service. Plus he probably has different investments, companies, buisnesses, his affairs need the oversight and protection of different governament agencies, political protection and even international negotiations and treaties allowing him to conduct buisness. So no it's not that simple.

I strongly believe that everyone should be charged equally for the same services. But the fact is that when it comes to taxes... the nature of the recieved service of having a stable and functional governament is not equal in worth depending on your net worth. With other words, the more you have the more you profit from it.

Last edited by Mihalik; 2013-01-15 at 05:26 PM.

Originally Posted by Orlong

It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground

Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

Wealthy people have more money, they still end up paying a smaller % of their capital then Joe the plumber for the same service

So yes, take what you can get from the upper class...

Define "service". When a normal person calls a plumber and pays 100$ and a rich person calls a plumber and pays also 100$ they payed the same and has nothing to do that in case 1 it's a higher percentage of what the person earns a month compared to case 2.

Also keep in mind that even if a rich person pays a smaller amount of his earnings every month as a normal person, he still pays significantly more than a normal person. Why is that so? Because a normal person earns only so little that he can afford everything he needs. A rich person earns so much that he can afford everything he needs and more. There's simply a limit when talking about buying food or health care or taxes. Rich people already pay a huge amount of money which the normal person would have to pay if he earned enough.

When rich people are supposed to pay more just because they are rich sooner or later they end up having only as much money as a normal person which raises the question "is there a reason to be the best if in the end I'll only earn the same as everybody else?". So by normalizing income you end up in something that's similar to communism where all income goes to the government and everybody gets the same amount of money. Why should people go to school or university? You're smart and could change the world with some crazy new invention? Cool, but you'll earn as much as Billy who can't read or write.

No. Economic discrimination is not wrong on an individual level by an individual running a business. Your goal is to maximize your profits, and if charging the rich guy twice what you charge the other normal guy increases your profits substantially while maintaining your customer base, then it is the right business decision. Price fixing for the sake of equality (which would be what stopping those guys from charging the rich people more would be) is something Soviets do, not anyone who supports anything close to a free market.

Government taxation policy is an entirely different realm of discussion.

I agree with this^.
I think it is a bad analogy to compare paying taxes versus paying for services. The service being provided did not also open the doors to becoming rich. The rich are paying more because they got more out of the 'American system' and they have to give back to what opened the oppurtunity in the first place. No one is saying you didn't work harder, or work more, or hell - even just got lucky - but it was America that gave you that chance.

The guy mowing your lawn, charging you more because he thinks you can afford it, (you seem rich) as another person (same size lawn same exact work) did not enable your richness in the first place such as with your taxes. I don't know the whole legailty of it all - but I can say this, it will be up to you as a consumer to notice this and decide if it's okay. Getting you lawn mowed by company A that you know have been overcharging you, does not mean you have to stay with them - you can choose to move onto company B. And that is company A's choice to they have to keep in mind they might lose business do to this kind of thinking.

That is probably the closest part to the analogy of taxes... If you don't like them, move the fuck out and deal with the oppurtunities and taxes another country offers you.

How so? Are taxes not paid in order to provide the government with the ability to provide a service to people? Its fairly obvious that the more wealthy are paying more for the same service, if you chose to look at it that way.

however the wealthy receive a disproportionate amount of benefits from government services such as the military, fire, police national highway system and social programs.

how would your current standard of living be changed if we where under Communist rule or without government services? how protected are your gated communities from hordes of destitute homeless.

Price fixing for the sake of equality (which would be what stopping those guys from charging the rich people more would be) is something Soviets do, not anyone who supports anything close to a free market.

British too. And for you Americans, your friendly state utility regulator. To claim the American economy is a truly free market and ideologically diametrically opposed to the soviet model isn't entirrly truthful.

It's your right to charge anyone whatever you want, but don't be an asshole and charge someone extra just because they are successful. You should be charging everyone the same amount.

I'm with you but it's bothering me that people with money are always considered "successful". They have money. We don't know any more about them than that. In society the "how" should matter more. How did he get that money? You can get a great amount of money by working hard and honestly but you can also get stinking rich by being lucky or by exploiting anything really. People, nature.. Anything. So why is everybody so quick to think that having money equals success? Is having money success? Is it really? Is it any more than mere superficialty? As Cartman would say, I am only asking questions.

"I wish everyone could get rich and famous and everything
they ever dreamed of so they can see that’s not the answer."

Erm NO. That is a horrible economic oversimplification of flow of currency and social reprecussion of whealth. I'll give an exemple.

Someone who earns 1000 "credits" a month and pays 200 into taxes that are used for maintenance of roads and infrastructure pays 1/5 of his net worth into said services has 50000 credits of property needing police and military protection etc.

Individual 2 earns 250000 "credits" a month but only pays 25000 into taxes that used for maintencnace of road and infrastructure pays 1/10 of his net worth into said but has 4.000.000 credits of property needing police and military protection etc.

Thus even when we talk about something simple like this it is obvious that he is not paying for the exact same service. Plus he probably has different investments, companies, buisnesses, his affairs need the oversight and protection of different governament agencies, political protection and even international negotiations and treaties allowing him to conduct buisness. So no it's not that simple.

I strongly believe that everyone should be charged equally for the same services. But the fact is that when it comes to taxes... the nature of the recieved service of having a stable and functional governament is not equal in worth depending on your net worth. With other words, the more you have the more you profit from it.

very good post, thank you

Originally Posted by ash

So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before.

One customer today just openly admitted that people charge them more because of the neighborhood.

I am confused here. Am I reading this right? A person who ordered service told you that they were charged more because they live in a more expensive neighborhood? Is that right? If I am reading this correctly... why are we taking this at face value at all. A customer thinks they were overcharged... quick, call the press.

On a more legitimate note, how can we say it's the same service either. Let's say you have to have your driveway repaired. Have we accounted for volume of materials used or material types or the difficulty of bringing the materials to the area that needs repaired? Let's take a hypothetical look.

Low-Income Home

The driveway runs the length of the home (we'll say 3 car lengths)
The driveway is asphalt
Crew can park their vehicles in the yard or on the curb during normal business hours

High-Income Home

The driveway runs the length of the home (we'll say 4-6 car lengths)
The driveway is concrete or textured
Crew has parking restrictions due to neighborhood guidelines; cannot park in yard, curb side parking has restricted hours

Same basic service (driveway repair) with radically different variables completely outside the scope of "They have more money so I can stick it to them".